Harper Uses Unelected Tory Senators to Kill Climate Change Legislation

[PIK]

Why does the left feel it needs to throw everybody out of work and make life unaffordable for most over 2 fucking % of emmisions. Don't you people realize how stupid you sound, you can take canada right off the map and nothing in the world will change. Lets just clean up real polution, which IMO is being forgotten about since everybody got on the Al ( make me stinking rich) Gore train.

[myata]

If I was right, you can't violate somethign that isn't there. THat being said, consent was always given with advice. It became the tradition precisely because the Upper House is unelected. Furthermore, I never argued it was unconstitional. I just said it's in bad taste.

We'll just have to get used to counting these "first evers" and "bad tastes". Learn to eat it, as there's nothing else to do.

First ever prorogation to avoid vote of confidence.

Bad taste prorogation to avoid scrutiny in the Parliament

Unelected appointees rejecting the will of majority of people's representative.

It'll take us all the way to first ever "all hail the Emperor". Eventually. Just keep counting and dismissing, routinely.

[The_Squid]

Bet your wishing the Liberals and NDP had supported the Tories when they brought forward the term limit legislation on senators, and used Alberta Senate elections as a possible model for the rest of the country. Maybe the Liberals and the NDP will support it the next time it is brought up.

You raise an excellent point. Perhaps they should have.

Maybe you should vote CPC in the next election since they are the only party who has tried to bring forward senate reform.

The CPC hasn't even come close to fulfilling their pledge to reform the senate. And beyond that, they have used it for their own partisan desires, in direct opposition to what they said they would do. Voting CPC does nothing to reform the senate. Not any more. And before you blame the oppostion (which is a cop-out), you have to look at Harper's own record compared to what he promised to do.... and it is a dismal one....

[myata]

Argumentum ad dictionarum, as the old joke goes. Clearly "democracy" encompasses a rather wide array of systems of government. Do you think that Denmark isn't a democracy because it has an unelected head of state that still retains some substantial reserve powers?

Do-h, and every self respecting King of old used to have his own appointed council that could introduce and dismiss any law. Something worthy to consider, and speaking objectively, we won't even have to go very far from where we're now. Just put a word in that paper how the King is imbued with the very spirit of holy democracy (something like what we have there now, according to Bambino). And voila, an all new (old) democratic system in a very democratic array of democratic governments!

[g_bambino]

Do-h, and every self respecting King of old used to have his own appointed council that could introduce and dismiss any law. Something worthy to consider, and speaking objectively, we won't even have to go very far from where we're now. Just put a word in that paper how the King is imbued with the very spirit of holy democracy (something like what we have there now, according to Bambino). And voila, an all new (old) democratic system in a very democratic array of democratic governments!

Blooble blabble dorp, says myata. Can anyone else get one iota of sense out of anything this guy says?

[Keepitsimple]

Oh please. If it was the Liberals in Government and the Tories in Opposition, you would be among the first here decrying the loss of democracy.

You might be right if it was a different bill.....but in this case, it's just foolhardy legislation that should be dumped. If the parties were reversed - I would feel exactly the same way about the bill.

[ToadBrother]

Do-h, and every self respecting King of old used to have his own appointed council that could introduce and dismiss any law. Something worthy to consider, and speaking objectively, we won't even have to go very far from where we're now. Just put a word in that paper how the King is imbued with the very spirit of holy democracy (something like what we have there now, according to Bambino). And voila, an all new (old) democratic system in a very democratic array of democratic governments!

I think we should probably keep this particular discussion to the other thread. No use poisoning this one.

[ToadBrother]

The CPC hasn't even come close to fulfilling their pledge to reform the senate. And beyond that, they have used it for their own partisan desires, in direct opposition to what they said they would do. Voting CPC does nothing to reform the senate. Not any more. And before you blame the oppostion (which is a cop-out), you have to look at Harper's own record compared to what he promised to do.... and it is a dismal one....

Let's be perfectly honest here. The CPC did not have the ability to reform the Senate alone. The Constitution requires the Provinces be on board for the kinds of changes the CPC had in mind. It was an empty promise, because it isn't up to the Prime Minister, the Government or even Parliament alone.

Edited November 17, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Topaz]

I think that any Conservative senator has been given the word to vote down any Environment Bill that comes there way. The problem in which they did it was to stop any discussion on the Bill, on second reading. The Tories had the power to vote against it AFTER the reading but they decided to stop it sooner and laugh at the Libs senators! Only under the Harper government do Canadians find this government in such a mess, with immortal behavior and my way or the highway attitude.

[M.Dancer]

Only under the Harper government do Canadians find this government in such a mess, with immortal behavior and my way or the highway attitude.

You got to love the immortal senators....

[ToadBrother]

You got to love the immortal senators....

I'm looking for the section in the BNA Act where it says "Senators will not die without the express consent of the Queen-in-Council"

[punked]

So the Globe is reporting the Liberals called for the vote knowing they had 14 people missing. It seems to me the Liberals killed this Bill which as an NDP member who doesn't see our bills go places very often pisses me off. You can bet I will be taking it to the Liberals for this move. The Conservatives voted they way everyone knew they would but the Liberals had the numbers and yet called the vote early. WHY???? WHY call a vote when you know you have the numbers but there are people missing? Oh I know why. Liberal/Tory same old story. The Torys voted how we knew they would and the Liberals didn't show up just like we knew they would. Enough of this.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberal-tory-senators-blame-each-other-for-climate-bills-demise/article1803004

[Keepitsimple]

So the Globe is reporting the Liberals called for the vote knowing they had 14 people missing. It seems to me the Liberals killed this Bill which as an NDP member who doesn't see our bills go places very often pisses me off. You can bet I will be taking it to the Liberals for this move. The Conservatives voted they way everyone knew they would but the Liberals had the numbers and yet called the vote early. WHY???? WHY call a vote when you know you have the numbers but there are people missing? Oh I know why. Liberal/Tory same old story. The Torys voted how we knew they would and the Liberals didn't show up just like we knew they would. Enough of this.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberal-tory-senators-blame-each-other-for-climate-bills-demise/article1803004

Even the Liberals knew it was a bad bill.....but Mr. Ignatieff didn't want to look anti-Kyoto in the HOC......so they allowed it to be defeated in the Senate. A good move for Canada.

[Evening Star]

So, after some sober second thought, I guess I don't really have a major problem with the Senate's role, as defined by the constitution. ToadBrother and g_bambino made some good points. (I'm impressed by the constitutional knowledge around here btw!) I still think it was against at least the spirit of what the Senate should be for them to have called a snap vote on this bill and defeated it on second reading, before it even went to a committee for debate. (How recently has that happened and resulted in a defeat of legislation?)

What do you guys think of the idea of an upper house that's more like the British House of Lords, with much more limited ability to reject bills?

In any case, I agree that the epic constitutional reform process is the last thing anyone needs right now.

If this bill truly represents the 'will of parliament' then all the opposition needs to do is resubmit it and dare the senate to block it a second time.

This actually was the second time that the bill was submitted. It died on the floor the first time because of the last election: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-reintroduces-greenhouse-gas-bill/article970993/

Why does the left feel it needs to throw everybody out of work and make life unaffordable for most over 2 fucking % of emmisions. Don't you people realize how stupid you sound, you can take canada right off the map and nothing in the world will change. Lets just clean up real polution, which IMO is being forgotten about since everybody got on the Al ( make me stinking rich) Gore train.

I can actually see what you're saying here. Something like how I can never really understand why anyone wants Canada to participate in a war in Afghanistan because I don't see what our military could accomplish there if the US military can't win the war in a reasonable timespan? I guess it's the principle that, as humans who share the climate change problem and probably share the responsibility for it, we should do our part? That it would be more difficult for us to expect the US (who produce close to 20% of CO2 emissions) or China to reduce their emissions if we don't show that we can do it ourselves?

I should admit that I haven't studied the bill closely though. It seemed good on first blush. Perhaps Harper is right that it is flawed because it does not actually present measures that would make it possible for us to reduce our emissions that much? I don't actually know what the economic impact would be. Are there studies that show that it could actually produce the level of unemployment and inflation that you are suggesting? Could emissions be reduced by developing green-energy technology, which could potentially create jobs?

[Evening Star]

Also, what do you mean by real pollution?

[Bryan]

This is one of the few cases where the senate actually did what it's supposed to: protect us from bad legislation.

So the Globe is reporting the Liberals called for the vote knowing they had 14 people missing.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberal-tory-senators-blame-each-other-for-climate-bills-demise/article1803004

Interesting. That's not the first time I've seen reference to the Hansard transcript being different from the raw audio.

[scribblet]

This is one of the few cases where the senate actually did what it's supposed to: protect us from bad legislation.

Agree with that. If the Liberals won't support an elected Senate they shouldn't bitch about it.

[myata]

I think we should probably keep this particular discussion to the other thread. No use poisoning this one.

The comment was only a response to your statement that killing legislation passed by majority of democratically elected representatives by unelected appointees is somehow, anyhow, a form of "democracy".

PM is not elected by majority of people or their elected representatives.

Appointees of PM have the mandate of the PM (head of the government) only and not that of the people.

Unelected appointees do not have democratic mandate in the sense most of the democratic world understands it.

Just another example of how far our system here when considered in actuality differs from what it claims to be.

But of course we can keep that particular discussion somewhere else. You only need to retract that statement.

[Saipan]

Harper Uses Unelected Tory Senators to Kill Climate Change Legislation

Time to pay attention to Reform idea and have elected Senate, eh?

[Saipan]

Btw, what "climate change" is that?

And what happen to "global warm up"?

[nicky10013]

Time to pay attention to Reform idea and have elected Senate, eh?

If you were so principled re: an elected senate you'd be appalled by what happened. However, you aren't. Which says everything that needs to be said about the true nature of the Conservative movement as it has manifested in Ottawa these past few years.

Maybe you should read this:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/15/politics-all-the-way-down/

Politics All the Way Down:

COYNE: Stop crediting the Tories with scruples they show no sign of possessing

[Topaz]

The only change I think should be made is when appointing new senators, the PM should have to appoint so many of his party but also appoint more of the party who don't have a certain number. So other words, if a PM has to appoint say 12, he can appoint 7 of his party but then appoints 5 NDP since they hardly have any in the senate. As far as this Bill, the NDP should remitted it again.

[myata]

Agree with that. If the Liberals won't support an elected Senate they shouldn't bitch about it.

Something I can agree with. With the essential addition that if we allow this merry duopoly to persist for much longer all our claims to democracy will be screwed, finally and irrevocably. The thoughtlessly undemocratic, absolutely unwarranted in a self respecting democracy powers are there and at least this one PM is showing us loud and clear that they can and will be used. And there will be more of it, now that the path has been shown. If we don't bother to see and act, we'll just have to eat the consequences we'll be fed. Eventually, force fed.

[g_bambino]

The only change I think should be made is when appointing new senators, the PM should have to appoint so many of his party but also appoint more of the party who don't have a certain number. So other words, if a PM has to appoint say 12, he can appoint 7 of his party but then appoints 5 NDP since they hardly have any in the senate. As far as this Bill, the NDP should remitted it again.

That presumes that the present number of political parties in the federal parlaiment will remain the same forever.

As the purpose of the Senate is to provide regional representation in counterbalance to the popular representation in the House of Commons, it would seem rational to have the provinces be more influential in the process of selecting senators. I don't believe directly electing senators is any improvement (in fact, I believe the accompanying increase in politicking and partisanship would be detrimental to the upper chamber); but, I do wonder if senators could be apponited by the governor general, or perhaps, to ensure no federal participation in the process, the monarch, on the advice of the relevant provincial cabinet. ...Just a thought.

[+]

Edited November 18, 2010 by g_bambino

[Saipan]

If you were so principled re: an elected senate you'd be appalled by what happened.

Yes, I am. That's why I always voted Reform, now it's CPC, as even the Left admitt.

We need elected Senate or non.